I think Many Volumes holds decent claims in that race Walter, I'll have a tickle on it

Lol funny you should say that as he was the other one i had down on my short list - has an improving profile and the extra 1f could well suit.

The numbers you quote in relation to Decent Fellow and Prominent King are not consistency totals but their probables numbers.

George,

Now you have lost me! You said in a previous post.........

In my view the probables device (purely numerical in character) is best thought of as part of consistency, ie to reduce, if it can, the number of consistent horses where initially four or more.

You are now saying, I think, the "stray" numbers are nothing to do with consistency but are their probability figures. The probable's according to the above quote are based on consistency, so if those "stray" figures really are the probability figures they MUST relate to consistency.

I think they are as you say a ranking of the consistent horses, but have nothing to do with probability as such. My reasons for thinking this are based on the fact I can award BL a 3 PK a 5, and DF a 7. Using the same logic I can put Bishops Yarn in front of Warner's For Leisure as shown by VDW. This logic works for many of the examples, but not all. This tells me it can't be the criteria VDW used to find his probable's, as some of his selections don't conform i.e. Son Of Love, and Ekbalco. In fact if the form figures as shown in the racing papers are used for Park Express (certainty) she would also fail to be a probable.

Now I can accept it maybe a coincidence that I can make the Erin work using a completely different ability rating, but the odds of finding another coincidence making the "stray" numbers work must be very high.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I think the probables device is best thought of as part of the consistency stage because when there are four or more consistent horses Van der Wheil used it to try to reduce the number before proceeding to look at form - it is in effect a further filter to try to get down to just three horses for serious consideration.

With the Erin, there were four consistent horses and applying the device eliminated Decent Fellow, leaving Van der Wheil three for serious consideration. Sometimes, as with the race where King's Ride was the selection, the probables device doesn't eliminate any. In the Erin, had Decent Fellow's probables number been 5 rather than 7 he would have gone forward for serious consideration along with the other three. (And like Beacon Light, he would then have been eliminated as not being a form horse.)

You are I think in danger of confusing the identification of the consistent horses and the subsequent probables filter. In the Pegwell Bay race, the fact that Bishop's Yarn was for Van der Wheil a consistent horse and Warner for Leisure wasn't is because of his criteria for identifying the consistent horses, and nothing to do with the probables filter. Only once Van der Wheil had identified the consistent horses and found he had more than three would the probables device have come into play. By then, Warner for Leisure had of course been eliminated.

A problem with Van der Wheil is that he had more than one method and applying them all to the same race can produce different outcomes. In my view, the major part of the differences between methods is the way he got to the small number of horses for serious consideration. Thus with his Sporting Chronicle selection box method he used the most popular tipsters' selections instead of identifying the consistent horses as per the March 1981 article and then, where appropriate, the probables. For those of Van der Wheil's selections found with the method shown in the March 1981 article (including Son of Love, Ekbalco and Park Express) the consistency rules and probables device where appropriate work for all of them (and of course they comprise the large majority of all his selections).

I think the probables device is best thought of as part of the consistency stage because when there are four or more consistent horses Van der Wheil used it to try to reduce the number before proceeding to look at form - it is in effect a further filter to try to get down to just three horses for serious consideration.

quote:

You are I think in danger of confusing the identification of the consistent horses and the subsequent probables filter.

George,

Are you now saying there is another filter to find the probable's, because reading your first quote it says the probable's device is to cut down the consistent horses??

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Yes, it is a device (or filter) for, where possible, reducing the number of consistent horses to three BEFORE those horses are given serious consideration from the form, ability, capability and probability perspectives.

If after identifying the consistent horses as per the March 1981 article Van der Wheil was left with three consistent horses they were the probables.

If however Van der Wheil found there were say four consistent horses, as in the Prominent King race, he tried to reduce them to three, and whether successful (as in that case) or not (eg the King's Ride race) the consistent horses not eliminated became the probables.

And of course we know it was a numerical device because of the numbers in the Prominent King example, and it is thus a matter of working out which of the several ways of arriving at those numbers works with the other main method examples.

George

Are you talking about a "second numerical picture " as in

Interested punters should try to understand the whole concept and realise anything of value has to be worked for. It is no good stopping half way through the project or thinking a part fare takes you the full journey. A little was left for you to complete, but all relevant factors were there to set up a second "numerical picture", providing you read what was said.
A couple of clues. The first from March, 1981 when a comprehensive explanation was given . . . "To confirm what the figures say (numerical picture), it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of class in which they
ran, the courses they ran on, the pace and going of respective races, distances won or beaten by and, most important, how they performed in the later stages of each race". And from Winning Ways to Bet . . . "You should not need to be reminded that the class against which a horse runs is not the same as the class of race in which they compete"

sounds like a lot of generalised/fact-dodging mumbo jumbo to me Boozer

Horse racing summed up then:

just find the best horse under todays conditions/in form..have a look at trainer.. a few past races...pace etc..game cracked...

wtf



and this is some kind of genius writing all this ground breaking stuff is it?????

mmm

Boozer

The probables device is a second numerical picture of the consistent horses but not, I'm sure, the numerical picture referred to in the quote in your post. That, for me, comes in after the probables have been identified and explores the issues summarised in the second paragraph after the Little Owl table in the March 1981 article ("In this race everything is straightforward ...."), from which part of the quote comes.

I think the basis of the numerical picture to which you refer was probably the main table in the Pegwell Bay evaluation, but obviously that includes only part of the data implied in the paragraph from the March 1981 article so it can't have been the complete picture.

Yes, this " probables device" sounds like a load of cobblers, imo.

Just the sort of gobbledeegook hook to catch a lot of folk and get them referring back to old booklets that must be so faded and dog-eared by now, that one just has to get a new set off e-bay, doesn't one?! ( Not fkn likely!).

Well, not for me, thank you. I'm content to say that where there's "conflict" caused by contenders that appear to be evenly matched, just forget that race as a betting venture, and move on to something more clear-cut. It's your money; do what you like.

Each to his own - as this vdw stuff seems to show. Even the "Chosen Few", who reckon to understand it, can't agree on fk all!

I think what it does prove is that each person has his own methods which he develops over time...this is something I have always said on here...there is no such thing as an ultimate VDW selection...because each person has their own ULTIMATE vdw selection

it are those that say theirs is THE correct one that have problems imo

once this...MY VDW is best mentality ...is removed...you are left with a number of developed individuals discussing racing using their own methods...which may have been based on the original...very basic ideas.

those individuals that are always crowing about how their VDW is the only way...are best removed from the equation anyway...it's that kind of bollocks that has given VDW threads/forums..a bad name

the people posting on here now...seem to be making the most sense about all of this

GEORGE / ECTOO

Can either of you answer me how you can tell if a horse has been competitive. The only notion i have is if a horse appears to have run well last 2 furlongs run on well finished well etc. I wonder if there is a different angle to approach this problem from.

I would appreciate any input that anyone might want to offer.

paul i like to say within half a lenghth per furlong of the winner as being competitive in the race

This message has been edited. Last edited by: les henderson,

Paul

I have been trying to find a useful post by Lee on this but so far haven't found it, though there are several relevant posts by him on pages 744-746 of the "VDW (Continued)" thread.

I hope I summarise the essence of the post I was looking for as follows. Don't worry about race readers' comments (Lee refers to those in the posts I have referenced above). What really matters is how the horse we are interested in ran in relation to those who beat him on his last three runs and those he beat. And this really flows from Van der Wheil's comments on Sunset Cristo in the March 1981 article - "The form is impressive [three straight wins] and note not only how it ran but what it had behind it, Silver Buck, Another Captain, etc".

There are also relevant posts by Lee on:

page 58 of "VDW Part 2" (in a discussion with Ectoo about a horse named Almizan)

page 676 of "VDW (Continued)" (a short response to Johnd about a horse named Byron).

If I can find the post by Lee I was really trying to find I'll post again.

les / george

Thank you

What really matters is how the horse we are interested in ran in relation to those who beat him on his last three runs and those he beat.

...................................................................


Is that ALL horses that finish in (front or behind) on the last 3 runs George?.

Walter

No, I don't think so. I think Lee has noted the comments re Sunset Cristo (where of course it was a matter of horses finishing behind, as he won all his three consistency races) and, of course, Prominent King (where only the proximity to the winner makes the performance exceptional), and has deduced that it was what might be called the main rivals over the "later stages" of the races that were relevant.

Obviously, as with Van der Wheil, we can only deduce how Lee works from his posts and, particularly, his examples, and whether he looks beyond the winner (when assessing the performance of a losing horse) or the runner up (when assessing a winning performance), I'm not sure. But his Byron example seems to me to be indicative, likewise his comments (I think to Ectoo) drawing a contrast between the then contemporary horse Almizan and Van der Wheil's Roushayd.

quote:

Originally posted by ectoo:
I'd seriously think about putting all of your stake on the place and scratch the win bet Walter. Days since last run is interesting:


Galactic Star
0-14 days: 12
15-21 days: 11
22-28 days: 148
29days+: 52532

condensed
0-28 days:1211148
29 days+: 52532

ECTOO
I like this idea above that you have put forward.
Would you recomend it as a cross check against the 3 most consistent in the betting or just a way to narrow the field for consideration

Here`s something ive dug out from my files George as far as i am aware the subject was never fully breached.
..............................................................

Seanrua
Member
Posted November 22, 2004 10:28 PM Hide Post
"Thanks for posting that comment by Peach. The split race time could be a modern adaptation Of "looking what a horse does, or does not do at this stage will provide the answers."
: PKboy.


I realise I'm harping on about " what a horse does in in the last two furlongs", but I find this puzzle intriguing.

From what I know, a horse can do one of five basic things:

1) Run faster
2) Run slower
3) Run at one pace
4) Run out or veer/hang
5) Breakdown/pull up/fall

If I watch the race I can draw my own conclusions from what I see.

If I read or hear about the race, I can draw my own conclusions from what someone else says they saw.

If there are sectional times, I can draw my own conclusions from figures provided by someone else.

Otherwise, I can think of no way of " looking what a horse does".

I just hope and pray that we don't have to bring in Paul Daniels.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: April 23, 2004

Ignored post by Seanrua posted November 22, 2004 10:28 PM Show Post

johnd
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 03:11 AM Hide Post
From someone who was around at the time, it may be worth pointing out to the younger element that the class disparity between Epsom and Redcar was probably much greater then, than it is now, hence their use in the example.
Posts: 1825 | Registered: August 20, 2002

Ignored post by johnd posted November 23, 2004 03:11 AM Show Post

Determined
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 05:09 AM Hide Post
Seanrua,

I,like you am intrigued by what a horse does in the final 2 furlongs.

The experts suggest that a race readers comments is just one person's opinion and as VDW dealt in cold methodical logic we are told to ignore the form book comments.

VDW said that Greenhills Joy had less of a test than First Division when evaluating the Newmarket race.

What did he mean ?

A question I am working on presently whilst struggling with the Righthand Man example and in particular the assessment of Peaty Sandy's in form or not for that race.
Posts: 1107 | Registered: February 12, 2002

Ignored post by Determined posted November 23, 2004 05:09 AM Show Post
******
Lee
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 07:27 AM Hide Post
Mtoto,

No, I'm not suggesting that is how VDW worked.

Why is not possible? There are many ways to isolate winners using different means of investigation, however, VDW's method did not hinge around speed figures, whether to determined class, or any other way. He said that they were a useful guide, but not the be all and end all.

Determined,

As I've stated before, you are focusing on an area that is of vital importance to the method. In order for the reader not to get too carried away with speed figures VDW was careful in how he gave his assessment.

From Racing in My System:

"Greenhills Joy won her race and First Division was second, but the latter's performance was far superior in a faster race."

From Systematic Betting:

"Both were first outings but, although Greenhills Joy won, her form upon inspection is below that of First Division. A slow race and the closing stages show hers was less of a test."

He felt the need to make clear that he was judging each performance in the closing stages by other means than what the clock said at the end of the race.
******
Posts: 420 | Registered: February 07, 2002

Ignored post by Lee posted November 23, 2004 07:27 AM Show Post

pkboy
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 07:36 AM Hide Post
Lee,

Class and Form most certainly appear to be at the core of CVDW's methods
Posts: 274 | Registered: August 25, 2002

Ignored post by pkboy posted November 23, 2004 07:36 AM Show Post

Seanrua
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 09:23 AM Hide Post
"
The experts suggest that a race readers comments is just one person's opinion and as VDW dealt in cold methodical logic we are told to ignore the form book comments."
: Determined.

To All,

Yes, this is the hard bit; we are told to ignore both racereader's comments and the clock " when assessing how a horse is running in the last 2f".

I've posted the five possible categories of finishing performance that can be done by / happen to a horse.

To determine the category without imput from others means to me that we must see the actual last two furlongs by being on course or by watching video recordings or Tv pictures.

Any reference to " reading the formbook" will have to be dismissed on the same grounds that ruled out race-reader's comments, ie third party information from a human source.

Perhaps life is an illusion after all; let me just ask this angel at the bedroom window. I'll have to be quick, as those pigs look like they're on a collision course......
Posts: 1574 | Registered: April 23, 2004

Ignored post by Seanrua posted November 23, 2004 09:23 AM Show Post

Lee
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 09:36 AM Hide Post
Seanrua,

Think about things logically, if a horse is noted as having 'qcknd inside the last' to make a race of it, what does this mean?

For instance, is it now a contender for the Derby?
Posts: 420 | Registered: February 07, 2002

Ignored post by Lee posted November 23, 2004 09:36 AM Show Post

Old-Timer
Member
Member

Posted November 23, 2004 10:14 AM Hide Post
Surely the factual side of race-readers comments have to be considered, such as the change of position in the final 2 furlongs. However, these cannot be isolated from the class against which the horse was running.

Lee,

To answer your question - it all depends of the class of the race and the class of the opposition. If it was running in a Derby 'trial' against horses that had previously run well in Group races, then possibly. If it was a selling race, then no way!

Oldtimer
Posts: 6287 | Registered: April 23, 2002

Ignored post by Old-Timer posted November 23, 2004 10:14 AM Show Post

Mtoto
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 10:22 AM Hide Post
He felt the need to make clear that he was judging each performance in the closing stages by other means than what the clock said at the end of the race.

Lee,

If this is correct why then bother to mention one race was run at a quicker pace than the other? One was run on heavy going so it would be expected to be run slower than a race on good going. To bring these races together the/a going allowance would need to be used. Is this not where the s/f comes into it's own showing one race was faster than the other in real time?

The strange bit about all this is the different interpretations different people can get when they read the same articles. Reading the thought process and logic VDW showed in these examples (Roushayd) was/is the main reason I think they apply to ALL of the main methods.

I also find it strange that you and others keep making the point that ratings are not the be all. I don't think I have ever suggested they are. They are an important cog, but just a factor that has to be used with ALL the other factors.

I have asked many times, what did Roushayd show in the last 2f of his Epsom race? If he was the only one that hadn't done anything, I would just put it down to my misunderstanding the point being made, but he wasn't. I'm told s/f are not the way because no record of the Irish horses s/f were recorded. Fair enough, but now I'm being told what happens in the last 2f is important. How do we know and VDW for that matter, as no race comments are recorded for the races run in Ireland? No doubt you will again say race comments don't matter, but the bare finishing distances can be very misleading. How do we know if the winner was eased, and now could we judge if a horse was ridden for the place, or the second horse was well out gunned on the run in?

Be Lucky
Posts: 1197 | Registered: October 22, 2001

Ignored post by Mtoto posted November 23, 2004 10:22 AM Show Post

pkboy
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 10:25 AM Hide Post
Old-Timer,
It's for that very reason that I feel the Irish race reports seem so much better than ours. They give a far more accurate view of how things pan out, considerably so, when detailing the various horses positions at key points throughout the race and where and when they started to go forwards/backwards through the field.
Posts: 274 | Registered: August 25, 2002

Ignored post by pkboy posted November 23, 2004 10:25 AM Show Post

Lee
Member
Posted November 23, 2004 10:36 AM Hide Post
OT,

Of course, the race-readers comments can be telling, however, they need balancing against other factors.

It is the latter stages of the race that are important, and what a horse does or doesn't do at this stage will give the answers.

***VDW's method of gauging one performance against another, from the distance, is the key***.

Mtoto,

"A slow race AND the closing stages show hers to be less of a test." The final time was of course a negative for Greenhills Joy, but it wasn't the Speed Figure (or lack of it) that suggested to VDW that hers was less of a test, it was something else that CAN be found in the form lines of EVERY horse, and nowadays nothing more than the RP is required.

Race comments are useful to gauge how the race was run, but that is all they tell us, in isolation.
Posts: 420 | Registered: February 07, 2002

quote:

Paul

I have been trying to find a useful post by Lee on this but so far haven't found it, though there are several relevant posts by him on pages 744-746 of the "VDW (Continued)" thread.

George Johns, try page 142, 15/3 08 at 12 40pm by Lee.